Note: This post has been edited to protect the privacy of April Holloway after the pseudonymous author asked that her real name be removed from the article. This included removing comments she made in response to this post. I have also revised some material to better clarify the corporate relationship between Ancient Origins and its affiliated businesses. Finally, I have removed photographs at the request of Ancient Origins, which asserted a copyright claim. While I believe my use of the photographs to be fair use, I have removed them out of respect for the wishes of Ancient Origins and Stella Novus.

Update: Since this post was published, and due to its publication, both Ancient Origins and Novus Web Solutions have updated their websites to (a) identify John Christian Black as the pen name of John Syrigos, (b) identify April Holloway as a pen name, and (c) clarify on the Novus page that Ancient Origins is owned by Novus's parent company and is not an independent client of Novus.

First up: The Roswell Slides were unveiled in Mexico City on Tuesday, and to no one’s surprise the “alien” body in the slides was immediately recognizable as a child mummy in a glass display case, presumably in a museum. The most interesting thing about the whole episode, other than the crass commercialism of the “unveiling,” is Nick Redfern’s continued efforts to rewrite his views of the slides.

So-called "Roswell Slide" unveiled in Mexico, before a paying audience, on Tuesday.

Back in March he said that the first, blurry image of the slide looked to him like “a mummy of some kind. Check the Internet. You’ll see numerous examples of small, humanoid bodies, in glass cases, positioned on blankets – just like the body in the ‘Roswell slides.’” He concluded that the slide showed one of many “ancient mummies.” He then backtracked and suggested there was reason to think the slides may really show an alien. Today, though, Redfern claims that the newly released image “looks more like a child-mummy than ever. The low-resolution image, admittedly, did not – at least, not to a significant degree, it didn’t. The smooth skin, in particular, looked very unlike that of a mummy.” That’s not what you said in March! You’d think Redfern would have been content to be proved right for once, but apparently not; and for reasons known only to him, he’d like us to think he was wrong. Here’s a weird one sent to me by an alert reader: Many of you will have seen the fringe website Ancient Origins, which runs lightly rewritten news stories about ancient history and longer compilations of fringe claims about a variety of ancient astronaut, pseudohistory, and related claims. The website claims to be “the only Pop Archaeology site combining scientific research with out-of-the-box perspectives,” though in terms of sheer volume, it’s more of a delivery service for a high volume of advertising for a variety of fringe history books, videos, and other products. (Disclosure: Ancient Origins has on occasion quoted my blog posts.) The site’s editor is named April Holloway, a self-described writer with a bachelor’s degree. She also writes for other fringe and fringe-oriented publications such as Epoch Times. Holloway uses one particular picture of herself across all of her web presences, including Ancient Origins, Facebook, Google+, etc. Weirdly, that same picture also appears under another name on the website of Novus Web Solutions, an Australian web design firm that shares a corporate owner with Ancient Origins, Stella Novus.

The same woman also appears in another Stella Novus property, English with Jo, a website providing English language lessons online. She has asked not to be identified because she writes Ancient Origins under a pseudonym. Here’s where it gets interesting: Novus Web Solutions (not to be confused with Texas-based Novus Web) did the web development and marketing for Ancient Origins, and the founder of Novus Web Solutions, John Syrigos (a.k.a. Ioannis Syrigos; a.k.a. Ioannis Sirigos), a Greek-born computer scientist and Victoria University Sydney lecturer, was promoted in Circular Times magazine in 2013 as the original editor of Ancient Origins when the site launched, before his name was scrubbed from the site. On Ancient Origins he is now listed as John Christian Black, but otherwise kept the same biography and uses a photograph from what appears to be the same photo session as the photo provided in the Circular Times article announcing the founding of Ancient Origins. He maintains a Facebook page under this name. Ioannis Syrigos has a separate web page for his computer work.

John Christian Black describes himself as “a computer engineer with a background in Artificial Intelligence research, primary editor for Ancient-Origins.net.” A profile of Ancient Origins published in Circular Times when the site launched stated that “Dr. John Syrigos is a computer and electrical engineer with a specialization in Artificial Intelligence.”But don’t take my word for it. On his LinkedIn page, Syrigos admits that all of the sites I’ve mentioned above are his own work: “I am a Computer and Electrical Engineer, co-owner of StellaNovus.com, an IT consulting company where we run several individual online projects (Ancient-Origins.net, EnglishWithJo.com and NovusWebSolutions.com.au).”

Now I of course would never say that people aren’t allowed to write under pseudonyms; pen names are an old and established literary tradition. Indeed, in dealing with controversial subjects they are sometimes even necessary. (Disclosure: I have published some forgettable, failed fiction under a pseudonym.) When I first researched this article, I became deeply concerned that Syrigos and his team were presenting Ancient Origins as a client that the Novus Web Solutions company has assisted—indeed, in their portfolio it was one of only two listed projects—while not disclosing on that website that Ancient Origins is owned, operated, and produced by Novus staff under other names. Fortunately, the Novus team has agreed to make changes to clarify this information and ensure that everyone who visits their sites has a much better understanding of the relationship between them.Perhaps unsurprisingly, Syrigos isn’t the first fringe figure to straddle the line between fringe history and computer science. Jason Martell spent much of the last decade trying to balance his day jobs working for GodTube.com and Christian Mingle, among other tech companies, with his ancient astronaut work, separating them out across his many web sites with relatively little convergence until recently.

Just an observation. From what I had heard, the slides were supposed to be from the 1940s, contemporaneous with the Roswell incident. The obvious fact of the mummy being a museum display of human remains aside, the clothing on the woman standing behind the case, from what I can see of it, is consistent with style dating to the Kennnedy era, but not with style from the '40s.

Reply

DAND

5/7/2015 12:46:45 pm

If you look close at the upper right corner of the first image, it looks like a ghostly, undernourished gray...Oh my!

Reply

V

5/7/2015 02:13:36 pm

Funny, to me it looks like an outfit I had in the 1980s. But in reality, there's not enough detail in the image as it sits on this page to really determine its era, other than "not Victorian or earlier."

On the other hand, the adjustable shelving the mummy is resting on? According to a quick Google search, that was only JUST being produced in 1947. I wasn't able to find out for sure, but I really rather doubt that a brand-new British product was being repurposed to hang glass, mirrored display shelves in Roswell, New Mexico QUITE that quickly.

Reply

SouthCoast

5/8/2015 05:35:22 pm

Good job with the shelving! And, in any case, that outfit isn't 1947! (Don't really remember many 3/4 length sleeves in the Eighties, but what the hey--- this isn't a fashion blog! *S*)

David Bradbury

5/10/2015 08:37:33 am

Thanks to mhe for the Tony Bragalia link below.
Looks like the Mesa Verde National Park museum was really really happy with that 1940s adjustable glass shelving:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-DHNayXVFQ40/U2xIpzJX68I/AAAAAAAAPPI/eX7rNnBsQ6g/s1600/mugs.jpg

I don't "like" people to think I'm wrong. I'm honest enough to admit I WAS wrong!

All we had to go on before the unveiling in Mexico was a low-res version, which I thought DIDN'T think looked overly mummy-like at all.

Now, finally, we have a high-res version, it's clear it's a mummy!

As I also noted in the article you linked to, the odd hairy head behind the other side of the glass is a key pointer that this is some museum or freak show thing.

None of this was apparent with the low-res image. The high-res resolves it. No mystery as to why I changed my mind - it's because I was wrong and was reliant on a poor image. The clear image changes all that, so why on earth wouldn't I admit my error?

But that's the thing, Nick: When you first looked at the lo-res image, as I quoted, you said in March that it looked like a mummy and that you considered it most likely an ancient human mummy! Now you say you didn't think so when you saw the lo-res picture, even though you are on record as stating otherwise. Perhaps you don't remember what you wrote in March? But, look, if you want to tell people you were wrong when you weren't, that's your business and I won't stop you.

Reply

Matt Mc

5/8/2015 02:36:44 am

Nick -

Interesting you mention sideshow, Years ago I worked on a documentary (and gearing up to work with him again on a Doc about the history of Variety performers on the east coast) about sideshows and freakshow and had the honor to have a personal tour of The Baltimore Dime museum (which is since closed) and it looks very much like the Gaff mummy that was from the personal collection of James Taylor (editor and publisher of Shocked and Amazed Magazine). After the closing of the the Dime museum it resided at Palace of Wonders in Washington DC until its closing, I am not sure if James donated it, sold it, or is storing it since Palace of Wonders (Red Palace) closing. Even if it is not from his collection there is a good chance that James would know if it was in fact a sideshow gaff or piece.

It is the collapse rib cage that is making me think this and I have seen several Fiji Mermaids with a very similar upper torso also.

Reply

Nick Redfern

5/8/2015 12:38:18 am

Yes, as I said in the article, I hemmed and hawed for no less than 18 months, during the time when all we had was a low-res image, and I went back and forth (and back and forth AGAIN even) because I just wasn't sure and the low-res offered nothing that could be said for sure. Now I am sure. It's a mummy. The hairy head behind the "dead alien" is also a clincher: museum oddity.

Reply

Nick Redfern

5/8/2015 12:52:13 am

Below is a link to a new Mysterious Universe article from me on the Roswell Slides.

Yes, it's speculative and based on a hypothesis of mine, but I think it's a valid one.

Take a careful look at the article, and particularly the old museum I mention in the article.

I think there is a good chance this is where the photos were taken.

Plus, the nature of what was held at the museum explains other things too (such as the "wolf head" in the slide) - and it's a New Mexico museum filled with oddities - and it also has a dead alien story attached to it.

In a couple of hours I'll be on my way to Phoenix, AZ for a lecture. I'll be offline while away, but back online either Sunday night or Monday morning. So, if any fucker wants to gripe and moan, do it after I'm back, as I won't be around to reply for the next 3 days.

Reply

David Bradbury

5/8/2015 01:58:58 am

I wish to gripe and moan, though not about Nick, who has done a reasonable job in problematic circumstances. My gripe concerns this image:
www.openminds.tv/wp-content/uploads/Blurry-Roswell-Slide.jpg
and specifically the curious border effect round the edge of the image within the cardboard frame. I suspect that the transparency had Photoshop blurring applied (and possibly also contast and sauration reduction), leaving the card frame in focus, to heighten the suspense.

Reply

David Badbury

5/8/2015 11:04:05 am

And on the topic of Roswell Slides- here's one from a slightly different angle, without the apparent motion blur, and with the exhibit label perfectly in focus.
http://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/2015-05-06_19-21-59-300x203.png
A full-resolution scan would almost certainly make most of the label easily readable.

David Bradbury

5/9/2015 05:55:39 am

It seems I was wrong to claim that the exhibit label placard would be "easily readable"- but readable it was, mostly. Well done guys:
http://www.roswellslides.com/

mhe

5/9/2015 06:34:39 am

Wow! That certainly puts things to rest, a two year old mummified boy. Would be nice to know what museum the picture was taken in. I did like Nick's speculation on that.

PS: Here's a shot from the Mexico presentation as published in The Examiner, showing the two slides on screen side by side:
http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/5e/4e/5e4e607b12aa1f10c45472c829bc05b9.jpg

Note that here, the one with the woman has the placard darker than the floor, and with hints of the lines of writing. Also, the bright area right of the "hairy head" is darker than in the version issued to the press (apart from a small bright area at the bottom, also visible in the slide without the woman). This strongly suggests that the brightness of the placard was deliberately altered to hide the text, and the brightness of some other highlight areas was then also altered to make the first alteration look less out-of-place.

Only Me

5/9/2015 12:42:47 pm

The promoters behind the slides have called The Roswell Slides Research Group "internet trolls":

http://slideboxmedia.com/placard/

Gotta love the response from Paul Kimball:

[This is categorically untrue. The only change made to their own original as presented online was an increase in the contrast to accentuate the actual letters on the page (which were deblurred using simple commercially available software). Nothing was added by us.

You can go googling for various sources (there is discussion on Above Top Secret), but apparently the remains have been identified as those of someone from Mesa Verde, the collector/donor's name is known, etc. because the mummified remains were written up in the 1930s with specific enough detail that the signage shared key phrases. At least one prominent UFO blogger who supported the photos previously has apologized.

I normally would talk about the death of the Roswell legend here etc. etc., but it isn't really necessary, the facts speak for themselves. Unlike with previous cases like this (the Georgia Bigfoot, the Alien Autopsy, the "mammoth crossing a steam" video, that shot of Nessie a year or two ago that turned out to be a left over documentary prop, Melba Ketchum) the mainstream media didn't care.

I was going to write a long involved bit on how the mildly more interesting thing to watch will be the fate of those involved, within the UFO community. But honestly, why bother? Some of the younger and more skeptical folks in the community, even if I don't agree with them, were the only ones who paid attention to the slides and ripped them to pieces as they rightfully should have been. The rest will continue to listen to the same radio shows and attend the same conventions and seminars that have the same speakers they've had since the salad days of Area 51 and X-Files 20 years ago. And besides, most of the hard core audience now believes it is all just a misdirection of ultraterrestrials/watchers/reptilianilluminati/shadowpeople/antichrist/globalists anyway.

spookyparadigm

5/10/2015 10:47:26 am

Dammnit, my lengthy post means you got there first on the Mesa Verde news. I find Braglia's apology to be a little here-and-there, but still, for ufology it is well above what I would expect, and would commend him and others doing same.

Carey's reputation, what there was of it, is done. Schmidt's, if you follow this stuff, had been done in un-necessarily a long time ago. And of course Maussan.

Probably the biggest own-goal here has to be Richard Dolan. I was highly unimpressed with his first big footnote book early on, before he went completely exopolitics. He's apparently on The Paracast tonight as a surprise guest, and I am actually interested to see if/how he explains himself. I'm not sure he needs to. The people going to expolitics/consciousness conventions etc. probably won't be too offput by these developments. When you've decided that everything is a lie except for what a select group of oddballs tells you, what's a museum caption between friends?

I expected these slides would be at worst a hoax composed out of obviously innocent pieces, at best a mistake. But I never expected it would be something so easily debunked. as to have a frikking sign on it.

spookyparadigm

5/11/2015 12:04:42 am

So much for the apology. As the slides are "irrelevant" that post was removed.

I think you're on to something, Nick, and that is the most reasonable explanation I've heard for where the picture came from.

Reply

Rose McDonald

4/11/2016 12:55:28 am

Mr Redfern;
You've pretty much trashed your own reputation as a serious researcher by your continued closer than close association with the Prometheus Entertainment stable of fringe theorists.
Frankly, your hyper-defensiveness about being wrong and the vulgarity you use to refer to critics of your theory says more about your level of professionalism than perhaps you want the public to know. You lost my respect when Phil Coppens was still alive. I don't see much chance of you regaining it any time soon.

Reply

John

5/8/2015 08:16:16 am

Jason, John (Ioannis) here…
Yes I use a pseudonym on Ancient-Origins, as do many other professionals, writers and researchers. This is not a crime as you make it out to be. Ancient Origins is mentioned on both my LinkedIn profile and Facebook - so you can see it is not much of a secret …
So to answer your last question, the reason I use a pseudonym is to separate different aspects of my professional life, since I have started up many different businesses, and do not wish to muddy the waters.
Obviously, if I really wanted to 'hide' my identity I wouldn’t use similar pictures and advertise AO in my profiles – common sense.
Your posting is unprofessional, infringes privacy laws and is also slanderous. I would recommend that you reconsider posting such content.
The Roswell Slide you have on the top has nothing to do with Ancient Origins … and gives an erroneous image of our site. It is really not correct to spread such misinformation.

I never said it was a crime, John. I was only trying to solve a mystery. I once worked for a man who used his own name as "CEO," answered the phone as "Mike," and wrote letters as marketing director, "Paul." I am sensitive to the idea that people want to separate themselves out, but there is no privacy violation in pointing out information you have placed publicly on your websites and in media reports. If you want to attack someone, attack Circular Times for printing your name as the head of Ancient Origins, and attack yourself for printing your own information on Linked In.

There is nothing libelous (note: slander is spoken, while libel is printed) about pointing out information YOU HAVE YOURSELF MADE PUBLIC. Unless you are lying about yourself, I cannot possibly be libeling you by repeating verbatim material from your own websites.

The Roswell slides were on a completely different topic and clearly have nothing to do with you. As is my wont, blog posts cover more than one topic depending on the news of the day. The signal phrase "Here's a weird one..." clearly signals a change in topic.

Reply

Mark L

5/8/2015 07:50:54 pm

Which specific privacy laws does it violate?

Reply

Kal

5/8/2015 08:53:54 am

Comments at the bottom of posts are not the responsibility of this blog site run by Mr. Colavito.. Also, slander is spoken, libel is written, and no it's not slander. No libel or slander there. The article clearly shows two subjects, although JC could have made a better transition, but that is not a crime.

Under the DMCA this would fall under 'review or commentary for the purposes of education or other peer review',thus it is an editorial. The comments would thus be 'other opinion or editorial content related but not reflecting the original poster's own views'.

Reply

Kal

5/8/2015 08:58:23 am

Before you try to figure out who I really am, I too am not related to this blog in any way. I just come here to read about the fringe reviews about aliens.

Reply

rick michaud

5/8/2015 02:57:50 pm

Speaking for myself, I enjoy these websites specifically for the 'fringe' quality of the content. Remember, it wasn't that long ago when the 'round-earth' theory was considered ludicrous by the leading scientists of the day. Your constant attempts to belittle these authors smacks of sour grapes. I can't figure why you won't just let us plebes enjoy our brain candy. It's not as if you're Zawi Haw-ass protecting your flawed and antiquated theories. Let it go man...

Reply

Only Me

5/8/2015 03:21:33 pm

I can't figure out why you won't let those of us with common sense enjoy fact over fantasy. Unless you're Tsoukalos, Childress, etc. protecting your flawed and obviously fictional "theories". Like your ignorant example of the "flat earth" beliefs of people centuries past, that has been debunked many times. Let it go...dude.

Reply

rick

5/8/2015 04:34:28 pm

The only thing those guys are protecting is their own meal tickets and you know what...it's America, let em make a buck. Besides if i wanted common sense I'd be watching Fox News.

Only Me

5/8/2015 05:23:16 pm

Ah, so fringe proponents should be allowed to "protect their own meal tickets" and "make a buck". Because you have more need for brain candy than common sense.

If only a warm meal fell into a starving child's lap every time some dunce can only retort criticism of Jason's blog posts with "ur juzt jellus" or "cahn u doo behttur??".

mhe

5/8/2015 03:38:00 pm

The idea of a spherical earth was established by the ancient Greeks in the classical period and has been the dominate viewpoint ever since. You would have to go back to earlier Near East sources to find a flat earth perspective at least within the Western traditions. Maybe not the best example to make your point.

The page Ancient-Origins.net is interesting under many perspectives: You do not realize its fringe side at first glance, and it is a very active page which provides frequently nicely looking articles with pictures etc. I remember that I followed it for a while.

I would say, this page is not made as a byproduct, there is some intelligence and a plan behind this. They have a mission statement, but they do not disclose the extraterrestrian aspect. It looks like an infiltration page to infiltrate fringe ideas on an intelligent way into reasonable (but less skeptic) minds.

Reply

Julia

5/10/2015 11:20:26 pm

I'm continually surprised by the number of people I know - people who are anti-fringe, and some of them well-respected academics - sharing articles from Ancient Origins.

I've been tempted so many times to point out the 'darker' side to AO, and suggest they share the story from another archaeology news site - there's plenty of them out there!

Oh shame, if you Google her real name, the image from Ancient Origins shows up in preview; then select it and the new image (open mouthed smile) displays instead. This could mean that they overwrote the image, but Google is still caching the old one in the preview. So she really took it personally.

Reply

acccc

11/4/2015 05:07:01 pm

hey is John Black there I need to know were you found your information for school

Ancient origins is definitely interesting. Rich in history and more indepth studies need.

Reply

StartThinking

7/26/2016 03:57:06 am

Hi everyone. In my opinion any website that publishes "news" with content full of "maybe's" or "could be's", is not news but gossip.
Gossip can be useful since it may contain fragments of truth, but then again it may be simply... gossip.
Who knows? A gossip may put someone in the position to question things.
However when a website claims to "reconstruct history", readers need to be extremely careful.

Reply

Scott Mckye

10/29/2016 12:44:39 am

After starting with the quizzical title 'who is really behind...?", why do you respond to John's rebuttal as if he's overreacting, or you never intentionally meant to raise public suspicions, and how he distorts what you presented relative to any picture's association to the title?
What was your intent and justification for all of these words, Sir?

Reply

Leave a Reply.

About Me

I'm an author and editor who has published on a range of topics, including archaeology, science, and horror fiction. There's more about me in the About Jason tab.